05/08/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted as shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees were proposed on site. Specifically, a mixture of Ash, Maple, Cr ab and Spruce trees had been proposed. Staff noted that three trees had been propos ed within the site’s stormwater pond. To ensure the trees survival, they should not be planted in an area of the site intended for ponding. Staff explained to visually enhance the site , it was suggested that additional planting be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off-street parking areas betw een sidewalks and the building foundation • At the south end of the row of parking stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loading activities from Apollo Road) • Within the off-street parking island west of the building (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) Staff stated the Environmental Board had r ecommended that Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than ev ergreens be provided along the freeway and that existing cedars on the site be reloca ted and re-used in a screening location. Staff noted the standards for calculating the o ff-street parking requirements for office and warehouse uses are outlined in Section 3, S ubdivision 5 of the C ity Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement was to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 37 off-street parking st alls were required for the proposed use. The applicant’s plan called for 51 stalls and si gnificantly exceeded the minimum off-street parking supply requirement. Likewise, th ree handicap parking stalls had been proposed in satisfaction of applic able State requirements. Staff explained the applicant had indicated th at the additional park ing stalls (beyond that required by Ordinance) were necessary as occa sional training sessions were to be held on site which would escalate parking demand. Staff noted the standards for access and traffi c circulation were outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code and illustrate d in the table below. The subject property met all of the requirements of this section wi th the exception of the curb cut opening. It should be note that a property might exceed the curb cut opening standard with the approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated as required, a li ghting plan identifying illumina tion levels on the subject site as well as fixture type detail s had been provided and had b een found to be acceptable. Staff noted according to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacen t properties or public rights-of-way. The Environmental Board had specifically reco mmended that downward directed, no spill lighting be used on site.